Religion is a poor source of morality

[Mudhammam]

I think that's fair enough, and not something I'd considered when I posted initially, so thank you for that. However, I would suggest that moral systems, by virtue of the things that make them run, have certain requirements baked into any and all of them that essentially shackle them to utilitarian ethics in some respects. Morality requires moral actors, I don't think that's a controversial statement- inanimate objects cannot act, much less act on a moral continuum- and this carries with it specific issues that influence the success of a given ethical standard; any moral system that leads to the death of all the actors that practice it would inevitably collapse because, well, all the people willing to accept the propositions it makes will be dead. At that point it becomes moot, though I do recognize that this doesn't necessarily imply anything about the moral status of the system: perhaps it is most moral that people be dead, after all.

However, I don't see any form of rational argument that would lead to that, and I think rational support is the important thing here; any moral idea that lacks justification or evidence is simply arbitrary. Rationally speaking, since we recognize that moral systems concern themselves with the moral actors that move within them, and are exclusively the product of moral actors operating within an objective reality, I think there's an obvious argument to be made that such systems should concern themselves with the survival of those same actors. Utilitarian ethics are the best tool for that purpose, recognizing as I say this that we're imperfect beings and further, better suited ethical structures may exist.

I agree with everything you said here; I would add to it a few qualifiers: 1) morality is primarily concerned with happiness, which every person desires, despite the discrepancies that may exist in the various conceptions of happiness. To the extent that these conceptions are mutually exclusive, both cannot be equally correct (which is the usefulness of Harris' landscape analogy). Some people are better situated to understand happiness than others; some may think they are happy, but would acknowledge deficiencies in their state of being were they introduced to something different. 2) Morality concerns intention. I'm not sure in which it is that the greater moral value lies - in consequence or intention - but all else being equal, I'd say these are equally important (at least) in determining an actor's moral responsibility, though not necessarily the situation i.e. a view of the ends of whatever it is that is being sought. Finally, I'm inclined to think that 3) morality necessarily exists where interaction takes place that involves one party in possession of a moral sense. A moral sense, I think, results from brain chemistry that has the wherewithal to recognize some (however vague) notion of justice, justice being something of proportionality or equality, which involves the rudiments of reason. All of these, I think (now I'm talking to you, Rob   ), go towards whatever demonstration one may possibly offer that morality is objective.